Veterans Affairs Committee on May 11th, 2009

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I mean survivors.

[Carlos Lourenso]

In order for survivors to be eligible, they need to meet certain income or needs requirements--disability requirements or income requirements.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I want to give you a couple of examples.

If you've done really well, and you're wealthy, and you choose to live in a million-dollar house, and you choose to participate in the program because you're a widow or widower of a veteran, are you eligible? Can you get the funding?

[Carlos Lourenso]

You're wealthy and you live in a million-dollar house.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Yes.

[Carlos Lourenso]

Likely not.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay, so what you're saying is that there is an income test.

[Carlos Lourenso]

There is a test based on income, yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Actually, I have that situation in my riding. I'm not suggesting one way or the other, except for the fact that in my experience working with mentally disabled children and their families, what happens when the people who really don't need it because of their income level receive it is that people on the other end of the scale are diminished. You're not able to serve better the people who really need it, who don't have the income.

I wanted to make that point. It is philosophical. It is ideological. But I think we can't lose sight of the fact that there are veterans I know who have done incredibly well and wouldn't think to ask for additional benefits. They're responsible for their own situations, and they really don't need it. To me, that's a good thing, because that allows us to put in more resources for the people who truly need it.

I'm wondering if you have any reaction to that from where you've seen it on the ground. Do you have any comments regarding what I've just said, because you've seen it on the ground?

[Adam Luckhurst]

No, other than that I think there are always people in very different circumstances. It's hard to be able to systematically address all the needs all the people have all the time. In any government program—and I guess I can talk more from the Australian than the Canadian perspective—you have to draw some boundaries around different programs at some point. And sometimes the boundaries among the different programs work well and sometimes not as well as you'd like.

There are, on occasion, times when people do better than others and times when people need care. From my experience in VAC, I haven't seen a huge number of people saying large numbers of people are missing out. There may well be individual circumstances where we work with people to deal with some of the problems they raise, and I think it's fair to say VAC does very well in trying to ensure that people get in the gate, through benefit of the doubt provisions and those sorts of things.

But I don't think there's any screamingly urgent area we need to address, from our perspective, that has come to our attention. There are always areas where people would like things to be expanded, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Luckhurst.

Thank you, Mr. McColeman. That does it for your time. Unfortunately, you're over five minutes.

Next will be Monsieur Gaudet from the Bloc Québécois.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McColeman's question got my attention.

You replied that if the widow was a millionaire, she would not be entitled to services. I would like you to tell me why, because it does not make sense. If her husband was a veteran who served his country, why would she not be entitled to these services? I don't understand the concept.

I am not saying that she should be entitled to all services, but she should certainly be entitled to some of them, such as having her lawn mowed and housekeeping services. If the Prime Minister is rich, will he have his pension taken away from him? I have a problem with that. I think that everyone should be treated equally, unless I have misunderstood how the veterans affairs system works.

Your presentation is entitled “Continuum of Care: Programs and Progress”, but I don't see any progress here. If you say that she is not entitled to services, then that is not progress, it is a step backwards.

[Carlos Lourenso]

The essence of the question was if the person were wealthy and the authorities that we have to apply to the program have with them conditions around income and around functional ability or disability, and the program is applied in respect of those authorities.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

You're not sure of the decision that you would make in such a case. I'm not saying that this person should receive services seven days a week, but that she is entitled to the same services that her husband received when he was alive. That's what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for additional services. Is she entitled to the same services that her husband received when he was alive, even if he was a millionaire? He was rich too, if she is now.

[Carlos Lourenso]

Certainly, once again, the VIP serves as a top-up program. Like any other citizen of her province, she would be able to apply to a home care program that applied in her province. After that, with respect to benefits from Veterans Affairs, we have in front of us a program that government has decided has certain authorities, certain benefits, certain limitations, and we would apply those. In the case of this program for survivors, there are limitations with respect to income level and with respect to disability or functional ability.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

If I'm not mistaken, there are some 100,000 veterans in Canada. In 2018, there will be 60,000 still alive. They will be the veterans of modern times. Have you planned for a certain number of spaces in hospitals specializing in the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder?

Last year, the committee went to Petawawa to visit with soldiers. Some of them were in very bad shape. What is being done for them? If DND looks after them until they retire, there will be no problem. However, if they leave the army, in my opinion, they will be considered veterans. What will you do for them? Do you have specific places set aside for them in hospitals?

[Adam Luckhurst]

There are a number of ways you can answer that question, I think.

One of the foremost issues is, what is the most appropriate care that should be provided to a younger person? I think there is always an issue around our traditional long-term care beds and how appropriate they are for a younger person. If you look at the case of, for instance, Ste. Anne's, one of the pieces of work they've been doing is moving into a national centre for OSIs, as well as providing the traditional long-term care facility that they do so very well there. So they are also looking at how best to treat the particular needs of the younger veterans as well. They're looking at the particular sorts of care that will best meet the needs of those younger people. So it's not the hard infrastructure of beds and those sorts of things, but it's around the different sorts of counselling and the access to the right levels of professionals with the particular skills that they need to treat occupational stress injuries. It's also about having space for group programs and ensuring that the families can access the programs and those sorts of things.

In my mind, it's not just a question that we had beds before and do we need beds again; it's really about what the key care areas are where people require support to help them get better. It's really about what the best service is and the best service delivery model for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Luckhurst.

Merci beaucoup, monsieur Godin.

Now on to Madam Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, for five minutes.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for your fine presentations here this afternoon. I'm sure the veterans that you deal with, as well as all of us sitting here today, realize how devoted you are to this program and how much care and thought you put into it. For that, you deserve words of congratulations for your work and your presentations to all of us here this afternoon.

We all realize how very important the veterans are to us, how much they've done for us, and how much we should be willing to open up and help them. I feel it's our job as MPs to make sure we represent our veterans well.

When we look at slide number 12, we see that an individual who was ranked with the care level of six or higher is less than the one with a care level of five. I was just wondering why that is. At what care level is it necessary, or even more cost-effective, to put that individual into a nursing home--even though they're eligible for VIP benefits--and have them get the support there?

[Carlos Lourenso]

That graph speaks to some of the findings of the research initiative that I can't really speak to. I don't want to leave you with any misleading statements. Certainly that's something we could get you an answer for and get back to you on. We'd be pleased to do that. As well, if you want any other information on the continuing care research project, it was quite extensive. There are some pretty significant impacts. We could always arrange that in whatever format, but we will get the answer to that question for you.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

As well, as we were going around, we realized how important the topic of veterans and survivors has been to all of us and continues to be. I'm wondering if you can give us an idea of how many have taken advantage of the services offered under the VIP program, or have you already answered that?

[Carlos Lourenso]

Right now we have 2,252 survivors who have been approved. Another 270 or so are pending.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have two minutes left, if another colleague wants to take it.

Mr. Clarke.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming.

An interesting point was brought up here. I'm just wondering about the VIP mandate to address the topping up for veterans who need financial assistance for home care and meals. Am I correct there?